4.5 Article

Flammability of litter sampled according to two different methods: comparison of results in laboratory experiments

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE
Volume 23, Issue 8, Pages 1061-1075

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/WF13045

Keywords

litter composition; non-reconstructed litter; reconstructed litter

Categories

Funding

  1. European Commission [FP6-018505]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the laboratory, different types of litter samples (constructed v. intact) can be used in flammability experiments but the sampling method of these litters could affect litter flammability results. To assess this effect, samples of litters were collected in South-eastern France, according to two different methods previously used in other studies, one keeping intact the structure of the litter layers (non-constructed litter) and the other requiring the construction of the litter, using mainly the surface litter layer (constructed litter). The comparison of flammability results showed that the sampling method had a significant effect on litter bulk-density, rate of spread and rate of consumption, intact litter being more flammable than reconstructed litter that was artificially compacted. The type of vegetation had a significant effect on litter depth, ignitability, sustainability, consumability and combustibility (except on rate of spread) and the litter composition could explain in part this fire behaviour. The effect of the construction of litters on flammability parameters and its magnitude also differed according to vegetation types. Intact litter structure appeared to be an important driver of its flammability, especially of combustibility and consumability. The assessment of these flammability components will differ when using constructed litter samples instead of intact litter samples, especially according to vegetation types. Future research on litter flammability should take into account the bias due to the litter sampling method when the litter is constructed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available